Eating red meat 6 times a week could increase chances of painful bowel disease

January 10, 2017

Washington, Jan 10: Men beware! Six servings a week of red meat, particularly the unprocessed variety, is said to heightened risk of developing common inflammatory bowel condition in men, warns a new study.

redmeatThe findings, published online in journal Gut, indicated that the highest level of red meat intake was associated with a 58% heightened risk of developing diverticulitis, with each daily serving associated with an 18% increased risk. However, risk peaked at six servings a week.

The association was strongest for unprocessed red meat and substituting one daily portion of this with fish or poultry was associated with a 20% lowered risk.

Diverticulitis occurs when the small pockets or bulges lining the intestine (diverticula) become inflamed.

The research team assessed the potential impact of total dietary red meat, poultry and fish intake on the risk of developing diverticulitis in nearly 46,500 men, aged 40 to 75.

They joined the study between 1986 and 2012 and after every four years they were asked to state how often, on average, they had eaten standard size portions of red meat, including processed meat; poultry; and fish, over the preceding year.

They were given nine options, ranging from ‘never’ or ‘less than once a month,’ to ‘six or more times a day.’

During the 26 year monitoring period, some 764 men developed diverticulitis.

But after taking account of these potentially influential factors, total red meat intake was associated with heightened diverticulitis risk.

But higher red meat consumption has been linked to the presence of inflammatory chemicals, such as C reactive protein and ferritin, as well as heart disease/stroke and diabetes, the researchers explained.

And the higher cooking temperatures involved for unprocessed meat, which was more strongly associated with diverticulitis, may influence bacterial composition or inflammatory activity, venture the researchers.

“Our findings may provide practical dietary guidance for patients at risk of diverticulitis, a common disease of huge economic and clinical burden,” the researchers concluded.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 10,2020

Washington D.C., May 9: Do the middle age feel much stressful now, and seems to have changed over time, if compared to the life in the 90s? Well, this recent study indicates that it might be true.

The study has signalled to the fact that life may become more stressful majorly for middle-aged people than it was in the 1990s. The researchers reached this analysis even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

"On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past," said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"That's around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year."

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans' lives has been changing over time.

"Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days," Almeida said.

For the study, the researchers collected data from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012.

Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours.

They asked questions related to arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work, so and so. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

"We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them," Almeida said.

"For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010," Almeida added.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s.

Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

"We thought that with economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults. But we didn't see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life," Almeida said.

"And maybe that's because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it's this generational squeeze that's making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life," he concluded.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
April 28,2020

As the world grapples with the impact of the novel coronavirus, daily interaction with the outside world --- public and retail spaces, restaurants, educational institutions, and even with each other has been and will continue to be reoriented prioritising personal hygiene and public health.

The sensibilities are building towards and leading to major changes in how the country's food service industry is expected to operate.

Based on a recent consumer survey by restaurant tech platform, Dineout, Indian diners are now ranking safety assurances and premier hygiene as top factors when it comes to choosing a restaurant to dine in.

The survey by Dineout conducted across 20 cities revealed that in a post-COVID-19 era, 81 per cent diners will prefer digital menus at restaurants, while 77 per cent of people will continue to want to dine out.

The survey found that 23 per cent people would prefer continuing with delivery/takeaway and online payment becomes the most preferred option with 60 per cent votes.
 
Diner's response to Contactless Dining:

 

Over 96 per cent demand better waitlist management
 
81 per cent consumers would rather scan a QR on their phone to place an order instead of handling physical menus or tablet-based digital menus.
 
After a dining experience, 60 per cent prefer seamless wallet-based digital payments over cash/cards 85 per cent would choose a digital valet over waiting in possibly contaminated public spaces and 84 per cent would prefer offering digital feedback over physical feedback collection.

 

What do people want to eat?
 
The report also revealed that most of India has been craving Pizza since the lockdown, except in Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata where their popular and indigenous Biryani recipes reign supreme. 
 
Which restaurants are diners waiting to go to?
 
77 per cent respondents claimed that they are waiting to dine out with friends and family once the lockdown is lifted.
 
Big Chill, Barbeque Nation and Social emerged as favourites in Delhi, while Mumbaikars picked Global Fusion, Poptates and Asia Kitchen. Bangaloreans miss going to pubs like Toit, Vapour and Barbeque Nation.
 
Aminia, Arsalan and Momo I Am emerge as the top picks in Kolkata.
 
Contrary to popular belief, Delhitties picked vegetarian over non-vegetarian food.
 
Bangaloreans and Lucknowis would rather have their drinks over food.
 
Besides the new parameters for restaurant selection, the factors deciding consumer delight have also seen a major overhaul as hygiene takes precedence. Consumers would prefer that the total number of reservations in a certain period be limited with the option to pre-select the seating, ample amounts of sanitisers at tables along with UV sanitised utensils whenever possible.
 
Hygiene ratings with detailed hygiene information, regular hygiene checks & usage of mask and disposable gloves by waiters are likely to be the new standard, with diners expecting service personnel to sanitise tables & chairs after every use.
 
Dineout recently unveiled the �contactless dining suite' to help restaurants survive and thrive in a post-COVID-19 world. The brand will also provide PPE Safety Kits to Restaurants to help ensure hygiene measures and is facilitating COVID free certification for restaurants through a licensed lab to ensure all microbiological tests are in place before restaurants restart post the lockdown.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 20,2020

Washington D.C., May 20: While a dairy-rich diet is helpful in meeting the body's calcium requirement, outcomes of a large international study links eating at least two daily servings of dairy with lower risks of diabetes and high blood pressure.

The dairy-rich diet also proved to lower the cluster of factors that heighten cardiovascular disease risk (metabolic syndrome). The study was published online in journal BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care.

The observed associations were strongest for full-fat dairy products, the findings indicated.

Previously published research has suggested that higher dairy intake is associated with a lower risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, and metabolic syndrome. But these studies have tended to focus on North America and Europe to the exclusion of other regions of the world.

To see whether these associations might also be found in a broader range of countries, the researchers drew on people taking part in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study.

Participants were all aged between 35 and 70 and came from 21 countries: Argentina; Bangladesh; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; India; Iran; Malaysia; Palestine; Pakistan; Philippines, Poland; South Africa; Saudi Arabia; Sweden; Tanzania; Turkey; United Arab Emirates; and Zimbabwe.

Usual dietary intake over the previous 12 months was assessed by means of Food Frequency Questionnaires. Dairy products included milk, yogurt, yogurt drinks, cheese and dishes prepared with dairy products, and were classified as full or low fat (1-2 percent).

Butter and cream were assessed separately as these are not commonly eaten in some of the countries studied.

Information on personal medical history, use of prescription medicines, educational attainment, smoking and measurements of weight, height, waist circumference, blood pressure and fasting blood glucose were also collected.

Data on all five components of the metabolic syndrome were available for nearly 113,000 people: blood pressure above 130/85 mm Hg; waist circumference above 80 cm; low levels of (beneficial) high-density cholesterol (less than 1-1.3 mmol/l); blood fats (triglycerides) of more than 1.7 mmol/dl; and fasting blood glucose of 5.5 mmol/l or more.

Average daily total dairy consumption was 179 g, with full-fat accounting for around double the amount of low fat: 124.5+ vs 65 g.

Some 46, 667 people had metabolic syndrome--defined as having at least 3 of the 5 components.

Total dairy and full-fat dairy, but not low-fat dairy, was associated with a lower prevalence of most components of metabolic syndrome, with the size of the association greatest in those countries with normally low dairy intakes.

At least 2 servings a day of total dairy were associated with a 24 percent lower risk of metabolic syndrome, rising to 28 percent for full-fat dairy alone, compared with no daily dairy intake.

The health of nearly 190,000 participants was tracked for an average of nine years, during which time 13,640 people developed high blood pressure and 5351 developed diabetes.

At least 2 servings a day of total dairy was associated with a 11-12 percent lower risk of both conditions, rising to a 13-14 percent lower risk for 3 daily servings. The associations were stronger for full fat than they were for low-fat dairy.

This is an observational study, and as such can't establish the cause. Food frequency questionnaires are also subject to recall, and changes in metabolic syndrome weren't measured over time, all of which may have influenced the findings.

Nevertheless, the researchers suggest: "If our findings are confirmed in sufficiently large and long term trials, then increasing dairy consumption may represent a feasible and low-cost approach to reducing [metabolic syndrome], hypertension, diabetes, and ultimately cardiovascular disease events worldwide."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.